Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting can fail severely on constraint-dense logical reasoning tasks, where unverified errors accumulate silently across steps. We introduce SymStep: an LLM makes one atomic claim at a time (DEDUCE: Alice, pet, Cat), then a lightweight constraint propagator checks the claim for consistency with prior accepted deductions, rejects contradictions, and cascades implied facts automatically. SymStep+G additionally provides MRV guidance after each accepted step, directing the LLM toward the most constrained unresolved variable. On a 35-puzzle retained subset of ZebraLogicBench, a benchmark of 1,000 Einstein-style logic puzzles, Direct and CoT both achieve 0%, while SymStep+G reaches 97%. On AR-LSAT analytical reasoning problems, SymStep achieves 100% vs. CoT's 87%. On LGP-14, SymStep+G achieves 100% vs. 0% for CoT and Logic-LM, the strongest prior symbolic+LLM baseline we compare against. Ablation studies reveal that MRV guidance is a key mechanism for reducing directionless cycling, while consistency checking provides a safety net against explicit contradictions. Across six benchmarks spanning five task domains, SymStep variants match or exceed every baseline on constraint-dense and arithmetic tasks. Experiments on AQUA-RAT algebra confirm the advantage is constraint-density-specific.
Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of reasoning flaws vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the structure of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning-knowledge-graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enables large language models (LLMs) to tackle multi-step reasoning tasks, yet the generated intermediate steps are not guaranteed to be logically sound. We present Reason Popper-ly, a neurosymbolic framework that uses inductive logic programming (ILP) to learn relation composition rules from reasoning traces and deploys them as an online verifier for step-level correction. Given an LLM-generated trace, the method checks each inferred step against the learned rule table, diagnoses the violation type, rewrites incorrect steps with symbolically derived repairs, and regenerates the remaining suffix so that the model can produce its final answer conditioned on a verified trace. We evaluate on CLUTRR, a multi-hop kinship reasoning benchmark, using five language models over reasoning chains of 2 to 10 hops. Across all models, Reason Popper-ly consistently improves terminal accuracy over standard CoT, with gains of up to 48 percentage points for small models and 15 points for frontier models on the longest chains. Compared with a fully exogenous symbolic pipeline, our method performs better on harder instances by preserving the model's successful grounding while correcting only verifiable reasoning failures. In addition, step-level ILP verification yields a fine-grained error taxonomy that provides diagnostic insight beyond final-answer accuracy.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct. Most existing verification'' signals are not diagnostic: answer matching observes only the outcome, LLM-as-judge provides subjective and non-verifiable critiques, and scalar rewards (e.g., PRMs/RMs) offer little insight into where a multi-step derivation fails.We propose \textbf{SymDiag}, a neuro-symbolic framework that \textbf{reframes reasoning verification as structured failure diagnosis}. SymDiag translates natural-language CoT into symbolic constraints and performs step-level satisfiability/entailment checks to (i) localize failing steps and (ii) produce verifiable diagnostic evidence, including counterexamples, inconsistency witnesses, and missing-premise indicators. A central challenge is that apparent logic violations'' can be caused either by genuine reasoning defects or by neural-to-symbolic translation noise. SymDiag therefore incorporates a Self-Auditor that disentangles TranslationError from ReasoningError via dual symbolic encodings consistency checks, enabling robust diagnosis under partial observability. Across diverse mathematical, logical, scientific, and general reasoning benchmarks, SymDiag improves detection of unfaithful reasoning and provides substantially more effective feedback for multi-round reasoning repair than outcome-only verification and LLM-based judging, offering a principled foundation for trustworthy and scalable reasoning diagnosis.